9/15/11

Then I spend an hour fixing an xcode linker error that boils down to "XCODE DOESN'T LIKE C++ CODE THAT CALLS C CODE!" And of course, it doesn't listen to what I tell it to compile the code as, it listens to the file extension.

I spent an hour to figure out that I had to change main.cpp to main.c.

8/31/11

until I came across Applescript. yeah, I got that they gave large amounts of power to the user (shoutouts to bash!) and yeah, lightweight, and yeah instant execution and all that. I just didn't think much until I had one in my hand that could actually do AWESOME SHIT. Like, now I have this application called Quicksilver, and I'm using it not only to open and close apps proper, but to run my applescripts, which open up random chrome tabs, reposition my windows how I like, open unread shit from my feeds, fuck even make new notes in evernote automatically! Godlike!

Shame so little Mac shit supports applescript :( I can really see how this crap could be used not only by programmers, but even people who don't know how to program, but want to do shit FASTER on their computers, or even learn a little bit about how they work

8/29/11

So I've been migrating all my stuff onto my Mac as much as possible, and that means starting to develop code on this thang to*. And that in turn means I should probably learn Xcode, especially since I plan on some iPhone development (everyone wants it these days!). So that means learning a whole new IDE, whole new way of thinking.

Which brings me, tangentially to targets.

See, on other platforms we got stuff like makefiles, that tells the compiler how to make your program. But the thing is, all the various settings for how to build your code can't really be contained in the makefile and the like. So shit started getting mad spread out, to the point where you need a degree in Comp Sci just to BUILD some codebases out there.

Targets are Apple's attempt to simplify it all. You 'target' certian hardward/os/libraries. And it's more powerful than just that! You can make targets that take you iPhone app and make it into a demo version. Really powerful stuff.

Which brings in new problems. See, because they're powerful, it feels like you should be able to export targets, especially since they don't seem (at first!) tied to a paticular project. The idea of useing one makefile for several different projects. But using the same target across multiple projects? Makes a kinda sense, at first. And even now.

7/20/11

And I SWEAR TO FUCKING GOD IF FUCKING ROCKET RA-FUCKING-COON IS IN FUCKING UMVC3 AND FUCKING GENE ISN'T I WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU CAPCOM FUCKING CANCEL MML3 AND NOW YOU DO ME LIKE THIS TO YOU FUCKING FUCKERS FUCK YOU.

The hardest part about Rex's death is the mornings. He used to come in and hop up on my bed, and follow me around the house. And now he doesn't. I kinda want to get a new dog that's just as affectionate, but I might be moving out of the house soon, so maybe not.

inFamous is a pretty solid little game. It falls into that category of a Good Game, but not $60 good. The good/evil dichotomy works in it, because it straight up admits that the whole ordeal is a comic book good v comic book evil. Compare this to games like Mass Effect, which really 'try' to make the moral choices seem real.

That said, the city needs more connectivity between buildings. Some areas are super great to get around, and then you hit a cable/ building dry spot. And that sucks.

6/9/11

One thing that has always fascinated me in videogames is how developers can make players feel sympathy for in-game characters. Most of the time, they build this bond by giving the character significant in-game utility as a partner; think the dog in Fable. But this is insufficient, as it only really gives the player a mercenary use for the character. The connection is meaningful in the system, but not beyond. To which developers respond by giving the character character. And we all know how that goes...(usually)

6/7/11

So I've been getting into competitive fighting games recently, and the two that I'm going in on atm are Marvel 3 and MK9. There are metric fucktons of interesting contrasts one can draw regarding these two games, but one I would like to talk about right now is how the two developers approach patching these games.

Patching is really a new concept to fighting games. 'Traditionally' the released game in the arcades was what you got. Even console ports were evaluated based on how closely they hued to the arcade version. The only patches weren't seen as patches, but rather as completely new games (SEE: the million incarnations of the SF2 series). But as the arcade died out, and the internet rose up, we now have the capability of keeping the game the 'same' whilst still patching it. Which raises the question...what is the 'real' game? We're keeping things the 'same', yet changing it.

So that's one issue. Another is when and why you patch. MK9 has been heavy on the patches with at least 3 as of this writing. And these patches aren't solely limited to glitches*, but major stuff like safe vs. unsafe strings, damage reductions, and juggle properties.

Contrast this with Marvel 3, which has had patches only to remove infinites**, and one or two game-breaking glitches, though only the Zero Snapback Glitch comes to mind.

And all this in turn ties in to the company business models. It is widely agreed that Capcom is going to release not only DLC characters, but a complete 'Super' version of Marvel 3. One would assume that all major 'balance' changes would be regulated to this version. Netherealm Studios appears to only be planning for DLC costumes and characters, not a whole new version of the game.

And we still haven't talked about the why's of patching! More on that later methinks.

*Which in fighting games is another can of worms. Remember that cancels, the basis of all combo's, were originally a glitch.
**Which were a major basis of high level Marvel 2 play